Talk:118th Regiment of Foot/Archives/2012/September

Merge
This article as it now stands discusses all three units as decided by the admin closing the AfD discussion. I have left the two articles that were not at AfD as they were but added merge tags to them with a merge discussion to take place here. These are


 * 118th Regiment of Foot (1761)
 * 75th Regiment of Foot (Invalids)

118th Regiment of Foot (1794) has been merged here and made a redirect per the decision at AfD.

See also the discussion here on the Militart History Project Please discuss the merge below:


 * Support. One has been merged per decision at AfD. If people do not like this it should go to deletion review. Since one has been done, it makes sense to do the other two, but it should be discussed and that is what we are now doing. These units had such a brief life that it is very unlikely that anything can be added to them. They will remain very small stubs for ever. Also the names of these articles are not ones that anyone will search for. They would search on "118th Regiment of Foot" which previously lead people to the disambiguation page. It might as well lead them to where all the material is. --Bduke (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The stub issue is a distraction. The articles were created for the explicit purpose of separating these three independent groups; I'd seen enough cases where one unit was mistaken for an earlier or a later one with a similar name, and a big chunk of new but misplaced information added, that it seemed worthwhile to create a net of articles and redlink lists and so on systematically. The idea was that any particular link in an article can be sent to the correct stub (or to the redlinks) and we thus get a degree of authority control, the same as we do with personal names, where we don't put three or four seperate short biographies of people with the same names in one article. We separate them out and create stubs with odd titles, even though no-one will ever search for them by a middle name or by adding "astronaut", etc.
 * As for "will remain small stubs forever", I have strong doubts - as I said before, I began creating these articles to help contain and guide the material I expected we would eventually get added. But this is a perennial debate, and I don't think we'll get anywhere fighting over it here for the ten thousandth time.
 * If you insist I will take this to DRV - though I should point out I didn't even know there had been a deletion debate when I unmerged them! - but it does seem a waste of time. If we must merge, though, leave out the 75th - it's mentioned here due to an incidental existence under that name for a year or so, and if we won't let it be a separate page it should be merged with the 75th not the 118th. One more reason for the disambiguation/stubs model - it lets us handle information that can be split across multiple names without duplication! Shimgray | talk | 23:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that you did not notice it had been at AfD does not affect anything. OK, I am now inclined to accept your argument about the 75th. Let us, however leave this merge discussion open for longer to see whether others join in. The other two however are a problem. We either merge the 1761 unit, or if we do not, then we have to go back to the disambiguation page. The latter involves you going to deletion review. I do not think we can revert the AfD decision without consensus at deletion review. It is your call. Go to deletion review or agree to merging in the 1761 unit. --Bduke (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying I should get special remit because I didn't know it was on AFD (I've figured out why I didn't notice, and am mildly annoyed with myself for not saving all this hassle two days ago) - it's just, you know, I went and fixed what seemed to be a routine but mistaken merge, and only then discovered it was a result of an AFD; I tried to solve that by opening a discussion in good faith in an appropriate location, and got told sharply that I Wasn't Doing It Right! It's not an attempt to get around the system - just a surprise and an attempt to fix it. Not my day, it seems...
 * On a more administrative note, I'm not really sure DRV is relevant. We're not contesting whether the content should be kept or deleted - simply where it should be - and as such it seems a bit... tangential. Consensus was almost completely against deletion, and normally we just leave merging/unmerging to normal channels. Proposed merges, perhaps? Shimgray | talk | 01:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can not agree with you about the AfD because it was very clearly and firmly closed as a merge, even if that might have been an unusual close. If it is not kept merged, the article is likely to go back to AfD. I suggest we leave this for a couple of days and look at the situation then. I'm inclined to make the 1761 article a redirect as the little material is already merged, take the merge tags off the Invalids, and then adjust the final article. The 1761 stuff can always be forked off later if it changes to be a significant amount. That seems the simplest solution. Anything else is more bother than one sentence justifies. --Bduke (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we can both agree on "more bother than one sentence justifies" - we just can't agree on which is the bothersome version! Oh, well, I'll leave it as is pending getting around to content... Shimgray | talk | 22:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Other editors have tried to do this merge. I have reverted the merge of the invalids regiment as that fits in with other material about the the 75th, but cleaned up the merge of the other regiment. I'm out of her now. --Bduke (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/118.htm
 * In 118th Regiment of Foot on 2011-05-23 02:14:23, 404 Not Found
 * In 118th Regiment of Foot on 2011-06-01 02:43:32, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.regiments.org/regiments/uk/inf/075-762i.htm
 * In 118th Regiment of Foot on 2011-05-23 02:14:24, 404 Not Found
 * In 118th Regiment of Foot on 2011-06-01 02:44:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)